The 2020 announcement

Oxley Beach was publicly identified before the later detailed assessment program

The July 2020 announcement was significant because it publicly identified Oxley Beach as the location for the proposed Port Macquarie Ocean Pool.

At that time, the project had progressed through a feasibility study and concept design.

However, the ABC report also made clear that the project still had significant steps ahead, including:

• further environmental studies;

• rezoning approval;

• consideration of increased parking;

• consideration of additional amenities; and

• preparation of the future development application.

The 2020 announcement should therefore be understood as a public identification of the proposed site, rather than evidence that every later technical, environmental, engineering and planning issue had already been resolved.

That distinction is central to understanding the subsequent history of the project.

What happened next?

2021: Questions were still being raised about the site and its impacts

The chronology becomes particularly relevant when Council records from 2021 are considered.

At the 17 March 2021 Port Macquarie-Hastings Council meeting, a question was formally raised regarding the proposed tidal pool at Oxley Beach.

The Council agenda recorded concerns about the absence of community consultation around site selection and potential impacts, including:

• environmental impacts;

• heritage;

• public amenities;

• traffic; and

• car parking.

The record also included a comment questioning whether the community had been given an opportunity to have its say about the proposal.

This demonstrates that, after the 2020 announcement, important questions about the proposal and its potential impacts were still being raised.

Port Macquarie-Hastings Council — Ordinary Council Agenda, 17 March 2021

2023: Oxley Beach was still described as the preferred site

The project documentation confirms the preferred-site position

A 2023 Port Macquarie Tidal Pool Committee submission to Port Macquarie-Hastings Council provides particularly important evidence about the history of the site selection.

The document states that a feasibility study investigated 10 potential sites along the Port Macquarie coastline.

Those sites included locations at:

• Town Beach;

• Oxley Beach;

• Flynns Beach;

• Shelly Beach;

• Lighthouse Beach; and

• Nobbys Beach.

The feasibility study considered criteria including:

• impacts on surfing;

• accessibility;

• car parking and traffic;

• proximity to the CBD;

• protection from waves and swell;

• environmental impacts;

• heritage;

• social impacts;

• coastal engineering;

• constructability; and

• proximity to existing facilities.

The document then states that:

“As a result of the Feasibility Study, the preferred site of the northern end of Oxley Beach was chosen.”

This is an important historical statement.

It establishes that the preferred-site decision was not first created by a later 2025 report. The project documentation in 2023 describes the northern end of Oxley Beach as the preferred site resulting from the earlier feasibility study.

Port Macquarie Tidal Pool Committee — 2023 Council submission 

2023: The planning proposal was lodged for north Oxley Beach

On 23 May 2023, the Port Macquarie Ocean Pool project announced that it had lodged a formal Planning Proposal with Council for the tidal pool at north Oxley Beach.

The announcement described this as the beginning of the next phase of assessment by the relevant consent authorities.

It also stated that challenges remained to be resolved.

This is significant because it shows that by 2023 the project was proceeding on the basis of north Oxley Beach as the proposed location, while the statutory planning and approval process was still continuing.

Port Macquarie Ocean Pool — Planning Proposal Lodged, 23 May 2023

What is the significance of the 2020–2023 chronology?

The chronology does not demonstrate that Oxley Beach was selected without investigation.

The available evidence shows that a feasibility study considered multiple sites before the 2020 announcement.

However, it does demonstrate something important:

The preferred location was established before the later body of technical evidence was completed.

The 2020 public announcement identified Oxley Beach as the proposed location.

The 2023 project documentation subsequently described the northern end of Oxley Beach as the preferred site resulting from the feasibility study.

Meanwhile, further technical investigations and planning work continued.

This raises a legitimate question:

Did the later technical investigations independently confirm that Oxley Beach remained the best available site, or did they primarily provide the additional evidence required to progress a site that had already been selected as preferred?

That is a question about the chronology and decision-making process, not an allegation that the technical studies were improperly conducted.

What changed after the site was selected?

The evidence base continued to develop

The project documentation shows that site assessment did not stop once Oxley Beach became the preferred location.

Further work included investigations and assessments relating to matters such as:

• ecology;

• biodiversity;

• geotechnical conditions;

• coastal hazards;

• coastal engineering;

• traffic and parking;

• heritage;

• Aboriginal cultural heritage;

• visual impacts;

• planning;

• constructability;

• social impacts; and

• project costs.

This later evidence is important because a preferred site should ultimately be capable of being assessed against the best and most current available information.

The existence of later reports does not necessarily invalidate the original site selection.

But it does mean that the community is entitled to ask whether the preferred-site decision remains supported when the full body of subsequent evidence is considered.

The 2025 evidence matters

The project continued to require specialist technical assessment well after the original site announcement.

For example, specialist coastal advice concerning the proposed Oxley Beach tidal pool was provided in 2025 in relation to the requirements of section 27 of the Coastal Management Act 2016.

This illustrates that important coastal and statutory issues continued to be examined years after the 2020 public announcement.

The question is therefore not whether technical investigations occurred.

They clearly did.

The question is:

How should later evidence affect the assessment of a site that had already been identified as preferred?

The 2025 evidence matters

The project continued to require specialist technical assessment well after the original site announcement.

For example, specialist coastal advice concerning the proposed Oxley Beach tidal pool was provided in 2025 in relation to the requirements of section 27 of the Coastal Management Act 2016.

This illustrates that important coastal and statutory issues continued to be examined years after the 2020 public announcement.

The question is therefore not whether technical investigations occurred.

They clearly did.

The question is:

How should later evidence affect the assessment of a site that had already been identified as preferred?

Why does this matter?

A site-selection process should ultimately produce a location that is supported by the strongest available evidence.

Circumstances can change.

Additional investigations can reveal information that was not available during earlier stages of a project.

New evidence may relate to:

• environmental constraints;

• biodiversity;

• coastal hazards;

• erosion;

• geotechnical conditions;

• traffic;

• parking;

• accessibility;

• cultural heritage;

• construction;

• costs;

• community impacts; or

• planning requirements.

That does not mean that every later finding will count against Oxley Beach.

Some later investigations may strengthen the case for Oxley Beach.

Others may identify issues requiring mitigation or further consideration.

The important point is that the complete evidence base should be considered when determining whether the preferred site remains the best site.

Was Oxley Beach really the best site?

The question Protect Oxley Beach believes should be answered

The question is not:

“Was Oxley Beach ever assessed?”

It clearly was.

Multiple potential locations were considered during the feasibility process.

The more important question is:

“Would Oxley Beach still rank as the preferred site if all shortlisted locations were reassessed today using the complete body of current technical, environmental, engineering, accessibility, traffic, heritage, coastal and financial evidence?”

That is a different question.

It is also a question that can be answered objectively.

The 2020 decision should be viewed in its historical context

The July 2020 announcement occurred at a particular point in the development of the project.

At that time:

• a feasibility study had been undertaken;

• Oxley Beach had been identified as the proposed location;

• a concept design had been developed;

• government funding had been committed; but

• further environmental studies and approvals were still required.

The project therefore continued to evolve after the public announcement.

By 2023, the project was still identifying north Oxley Beach as the preferred site and had moved into the formal planning-proposal phase.

By 2025, additional technical and specialist work was still being undertaken.

This chronology is important when considering whether the site-selection decision should be regarded as settled or whether it should remain open to reassessment based on the complete evidence. 

Protect Oxley Beach's position

Protect Oxley Beach is not claiming that another location must necessarily be selected.

Nor is this page suggesting that the feasibility study or later technical reports should simply be disregarded.

Our position is that the community should be able to understand when the preferred site was established, what evidence was available at each stage, what additional evidence was obtained later, and whether that evidence continues to support the same location.

An independent and transparent reassessment of the shortlisted sites would provide greater confidence that the final location reflects the best available evidence today, rather than simply continuing a preferred location established earlier in the project's history. 

The key question for Port Macquarie

If the complete evidence available today were used to reassess all of the shortlisted locations, would Oxley Beach still be ranked first?

That is the question we believe deserves a clear, transparent and evidence-based answer.

Protect Oxley Beach believes that major decisions affecting Oxley Beach should be based on the best available evidence, transparent assessment and proper consideration of environmental, cultural, social, accessibility, infrastructure and financial impacts. 

Key dates and source documents

15 July 2020 — Oxley Beach publicly announced

ABC News reported that Oxley Beach had been announced as the site for the proposed Port Macquarie ocean pool, while also reporting that further environmental studies, rezoning and parking/amenities work remained.

ABC News — 15 July 2020

17 March 2021 — Council questions site selection and impacts

Port Macquarie-Hastings Council's agenda recorded questions concerning consultation around site selection and potential environmental, heritage, amenity, traffic and parking impacts.

PMHC Council Agenda — 17 March 2021

2023 — Preferred site identified in project documentation

The Port Macquarie Tidal Pool Committee's 2023 Council submission states that the feasibility study assessed multiple coastal locations and that the northern end of Oxley Beach was chosen as the preferred site.

Port Macquarie Tidal Pool Committee — 2023 Council submission

23 May 2023 — Planning Proposal lodged

The project announced that its formal Planning Proposal for the tidal pool at north Oxley Beach had been lodged with Council.

Port Macquarie Ocean Pool — Planning Proposal Lodged

2025 — Further specialist technical assessment

Further coastal, environmental, engineering and planning work continued as the proposal progressed.